If you embrace the IPCC report as the unvarnished truth, then it is
inevitable that you will claim "the other side has no/few ideas worthy of
funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation." But that claim in and of
itself paints you into a very small corner from which there is no escape.

"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:47:08 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 15:44:42 +0000, Larry wrote:


Did you actually WATCH the video or are you, as I suspect, worrying over
Lord Puttnam?

Yes, I watched it when it was first shown on tv.

The SCIENTIFIC FACTS presented on the Swindle special are
irrefutable,

********!

I found it quite convincing at the time. Even you must have noticed
that it was completely one-sided with no opportunity given to refute
its claims. You might also have noted that they truncated a graph
where it diverged from the doctrine. It has been thoroughly trashed
since.

You mean like "An Inconvenient Truth"? Both sides cherry pick their data
and
and one-sided. That's the entire point of having "sides." Yet only one
side
has taken on religous fervor, with nay-sayers being labeled heretics.

There is no need today to listen to the media or political parties.
You can read the iPCC reports which are fairly transparent or surf the
WWW. The orginal papers are referenced and available. From there you
can get the methods, error bars etc. The 'other' side has little but
lies and lobbyists.


My opinion, based upon all available data I've seen? Both sides have some
convincing arguments, but nothing indicates that there is an emergency to
which we must respond immediately. The more prudent course would be
continued and unbiased study of the matter. By funding both sides, the
debate should drag out for decades, giving us time to really find out
whether or not we are altering the climate to any significant degree.

It is not about saving the planet, it is about economics, mass
emigration, wars etc.. If sea level does rise significantly it will
cost LOT's!(tm) to lose cities that we have built everywhere in the
world around ports and on flat low lying ground. It will cost (it is
estimated) Lot's Less(tm) to reduce emissions but still Lot's(tm).
Larry does not want to pay the (relatively) chickenfeed amounts to do
research that has not, so far, given the answers he wants. Go figure!

" funding both sides" The problem is "the other side" has no/few
ideas worthy of funding, just a lot of hot air and misinformation..


In the
meantime, technological progress should make the entire argument moot.

Right...